Physical Media Has To Go. I'm Digital Only From Here.(blog.louisgray.com)
blog.louisgray.com
Physical Media Has To Go. I'm Digital Only From Here.
http://blog.louisgray.com/2011/04/physical-media-has-to-go-im-digital.html
10 comments
I'm all for digital, but I think we need some serious commitment from publishers and distributors and content warehouses before we continue making huge investments into what is essentially a collection of content licenses.
This seems a lot of work in a world where most content, and most popular content, is disposable by design.
This seems a lot of work in a world where most content, and most popular content, is disposable by design.
This seems a lot of work in a world where most content, and most popular content, is disposable by design.
The books I read, the movies I watch, the music I listen to...I really can't think of how any of it could be described as "disposable by design".
I read a book written in 1966 the other day. That's young by the standards of literature, and yet it's older than I am.
Netflix's entire business model is built on movies not having an expiration date.
And to call music "disposable" is a statement that I don't even know how to respond to.
The books I read, the movies I watch, the music I listen to...I really can't think of how any of it could be described as "disposable by design".
I read a book written in 1966 the other day. That's young by the standards of literature, and yet it's older than I am.
Netflix's entire business model is built on movies not having an expiration date.
And to call music "disposable" is a statement that I don't even know how to respond to.
Are the "popular" books you read, especially paperbacks, printed on acid free paper?
You do have a point, the book I'm reading right now is a hardback that was published and printed in 1958, but it has suffered some deterioration. The paper in quite a few paperbacks I bought in the '80s are in worse shape.
But then there's projects like Google Books to capture such artifacts ... if they can only negotiate the lawyer gauntlet.
You do have a point, the book I'm reading right now is a hardback that was published and printed in 1958, but it has suffered some deterioration. The paper in quite a few paperbacks I bought in the '80s are in worse shape.
But then there's projects like Google Books to capture such artifacts ... if they can only negotiate the lawyer gauntlet.
On the other hand (and I'm slightly playing Devil's advocate here), books and other physical media go out of print eventually. It can become difficult to find a copy of some archaic technical manual that interests you. (Anyone selling any Symbolics manuals? :-))
There is no reason for a digital publishing to stop creating new copies of a digital work (once they finally develop an economic model that works.)
There is no reason for a digital publishing to stop creating new copies of a digital work (once they finally develop an economic model that works.)
Honestly, I think this is one of the best use cases for piracy. There may be no money in putting out a Symbolics manual, but it costs a pirate uploading a digital version almost nothing. Look at older video game emulation as well. It's probably not worth it to the companies to continue to put out the type of games that wind up on abandonware sites, but thanks to dedicated fans who pirate them, they wind up preserved for future generations.
To be fair he pick out "popular" music as being disposable.
It is surely indisputable that much popular music is produced with short-term profit rather than musical excellence in mind.
That, I suggest, is disposable music. Is Britney Spears music getting a bit old? Don't worry, there'll be new mindless, trivial drivel here in a short while.
It is surely indisputable that much popular music is produced with short-term profit rather than musical excellence in mind.
That, I suggest, is disposable music. Is Britney Spears music getting a bit old? Don't worry, there'll be new mindless, trivial drivel here in a short while.
It certainly makes you wonder about how this civilization is going to be viewed in the future. How are we going to leave traces of our civilization for future civilizations to find and decode? I suspect that the riddles of Egyptian hieroglyphics are going to be pale in comparison to decoding DVD information, for example. Moreover, how pissed off are they going to be to go through all the work hacking our digital formats only to find "disposable content," as you so eloquently put?
how pissed off are they going to be to go through all the work hacking our digital formats only to find "disposable content," as you so eloquently put?
I may be understanding your point, and if so I apologize, but I think the "format rot" argument is a red herring. Yes, formats come and go. But as long as there's a sizable catalog of content in a given format, it's going to be readable. We can still read WAV files, RTF files and AVI files from decades ago. In fact, most computers can read these formats without even downloading any special tools.
It's true that reading your VisiCalc spreadsheets off of an old tape backup is going to be a pain in the ass. But that was the freaking dawn of digital storage. Imagining that there is going to be the same upheaval in storage in the next 100 years as there was in the last 200 years is absurd. Things are stabilizing. Media are being abstracted away. Powerful catalogs of codecs and transcoders are being packaged up into easy-to-integrate services.
I think there's a reasonable chance that YouTube videos will be viewable on all computing devices for the rest of time without us having to do any transcoding. Maybe Google will migrate to new formats like they're doing with WebM. Maybe Google will eventually sell YouTube off as a historical relic. Maybe they'll even shut it down and someone will suck out all the public video and store it somewhere else like they did with GeoCities.
But acting like YouTube is the same as some tape backup, or an LP... it's just not. The technology is at a very different stage in it's life cycle.
I may be understanding your point, and if so I apologize, but I think the "format rot" argument is a red herring. Yes, formats come and go. But as long as there's a sizable catalog of content in a given format, it's going to be readable. We can still read WAV files, RTF files and AVI files from decades ago. In fact, most computers can read these formats without even downloading any special tools.
It's true that reading your VisiCalc spreadsheets off of an old tape backup is going to be a pain in the ass. But that was the freaking dawn of digital storage. Imagining that there is going to be the same upheaval in storage in the next 100 years as there was in the last 200 years is absurd. Things are stabilizing. Media are being abstracted away. Powerful catalogs of codecs and transcoders are being packaged up into easy-to-integrate services.
I think there's a reasonable chance that YouTube videos will be viewable on all computing devices for the rest of time without us having to do any transcoding. Maybe Google will migrate to new formats like they're doing with WebM. Maybe Google will eventually sell YouTube off as a historical relic. Maybe they'll even shut it down and someone will suck out all the public video and store it somewhere else like they did with GeoCities.
But acting like YouTube is the same as some tape backup, or an LP... it's just not. The technology is at a very different stage in it's life cycle.
My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and was kind of a lighthearted commentary on DRM and the state of content.
Nonetheless, your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially that The Internet will automagically preserve all content, the way to decode it and reproduce it in the way it was originally intended to be consumed - forever.
The implication in my post was that the internet won't last forever, that civilizations come and go, and maybe with the end of our civilization the internet will be lost, and with it the key to decoding all this information. I understand that the devices themselves will or already have the capability to preserve the data forever (for all practical purposes), but this is akin to being on a deserted island and saying you have 8 million songs on your iPod, but no earphones to play them with. On top of that, imagine that you go through all the trouble of figuring out how to make earphones from raw materials you find on this island, figuring out how the plug is supposed to work, how to charge the battery - only to find out that the songs are all crap.
Nonetheless, your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially that The Internet will automagically preserve all content, the way to decode it and reproduce it in the way it was originally intended to be consumed - forever.
The implication in my post was that the internet won't last forever, that civilizations come and go, and maybe with the end of our civilization the internet will be lost, and with it the key to decoding all this information. I understand that the devices themselves will or already have the capability to preserve the data forever (for all practical purposes), but this is akin to being on a deserted island and saying you have 8 million songs on your iPod, but no earphones to play them with. On top of that, imagine that you go through all the trouble of figuring out how to make earphones from raw materials you find on this island, figuring out how the plug is supposed to work, how to charge the battery - only to find out that the songs are all crap.
the internet won't last forever, that civilizations come and go, and maybe with the end of our civilization the internet will be lost
I actually think the internet is a kind of permaculture. It's like a new kingdom. We have animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, the bacteria, fungi, etc, and now the bit kingdom. And it's as robust as the other kingdoms.
I doubt you could come up with any kind of vaguely plausible scenario where the internet disappeared completely.
I actually think the internet is a kind of permaculture. It's like a new kingdom. We have animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, the bacteria, fungi, etc, and now the bit kingdom. And it's as robust as the other kingdoms.
I doubt you could come up with any kind of vaguely plausible scenario where the internet disappeared completely.
It'd be an interesting project to go about creating a "digital Rosetta stone" for the purpose of decoding that information. The Voyager Golden Record came with instructions for creating a record player for it, but an entire computer would be far more complex, not to mention the actual programs for decoding the data. Difficult, but perhaps a good idea.
All good points. The issue we're facing with DRM, upgradability etc is similar to that faced with moving from LPs to Cassettes to CDs to MP3s to...
Books decay. Digital files get corrupted. Companies rise and fall. I know I'll end up buying things more than once, just like I did with my Depeche Mode collection - at least three times.
Books decay. Digital files get corrupted. Companies rise and fall. I know I'll end up buying things more than once, just like I did with my Depeche Mode collection - at least three times.
That's one of the big points of contention, for me. If I am purchasing a digital copy of your content, then I am essentially purchasing nothing but a license to use that content and it should therefore be your job to ensure I can continue to access that content for the rest of my life (or longer, if we figure out the whole management of digital copies of things so I can give my library to my nephew when I die or something).
When you are changing the physical media, it's a little more understandable (even though you're still really just giving me a license to the content on it and nothing else). When it's already in digital format, it's no longer acceptable to play that sucker's game, as far as I'm concerned.
When you are changing the physical media, it's a little more understandable (even though you're still really just giving me a license to the content on it and nothing else). When it's already in digital format, it's no longer acceptable to play that sucker's game, as far as I'm concerned.
My problem with "digital decay" is that it's much more "binary" - it's working or it's completely unusable. When the reception gets fuzzy on digital TV, you simply can't watch the station where as an analog signal has varying levels of decay.
If you have a hard drive full of images and it fails, it's all gone (better have a backup!), but if you have a box full of photos and your house floods, some of them may still be around.
Analog fades, digital dies, unless it's constantly resuscitated. When you think about it how many times have you found an old photo that you probably wouldn't have kept if you had the choice? Or some old photos or music at your grandparent's house.
What are my grand kids going to find at my house?
If you have a hard drive full of images and it fails, it's all gone (better have a backup!), but if you have a box full of photos and your house floods, some of them may still be around.
Analog fades, digital dies, unless it's constantly resuscitated. When you think about it how many times have you found an old photo that you probably wouldn't have kept if you had the choice? Or some old photos or music at your grandparent's house.
What are my grand kids going to find at my house?
Your grandkids are going to web search for your name and find digital scraps of your life.
But the problem is that "information on the web" must be kept alive constantly. Everything to do with digital storage is far more transient than a hard copy of a book or a photo.
With a book or a photo, the storage of information, and it's mechanism for display are one and the same. With all digitally encoded media, one must have the appropriate decoder.
If I keep a journal on wordpress.com, it can't be left to grow old and musty, with no effort. It decays absolutely the instant it is not being maintained, where as if I keep a journal on a notepad, it can take up a tiny amount of physical space in the real world, and lie somewhere unmaintained for centuries without decaying to the point of unusability.
As the speed of information creation and transfer has increased, so too has the longevity of that information decreased. From stone tablets, to papyrus, to SMS messages stored on an SD card - the volume of the world's information is now increasing at an astounding rate but would archaeologists be able to discover it thousands of years from now?
With a book or a photo, the storage of information, and it's mechanism for display are one and the same. With all digitally encoded media, one must have the appropriate decoder.
If I keep a journal on wordpress.com, it can't be left to grow old and musty, with no effort. It decays absolutely the instant it is not being maintained, where as if I keep a journal on a notepad, it can take up a tiny amount of physical space in the real world, and lie somewhere unmaintained for centuries without decaying to the point of unusability.
As the speed of information creation and transfer has increased, so too has the longevity of that information decreased. From stone tablets, to papyrus, to SMS messages stored on an SD card - the volume of the world's information is now increasing at an astounding rate but would archaeologists be able to discover it thousands of years from now?
If you put your photos on Facebook, they will probably be available forever. They will certainly be available for your grandkids' lifetimes.
I'm not so sure.
A few years ago a similar statement could have been made about Myspace or friendster a few years before that. Would you be willing to make such a statement about either company today?
Would you have been willing to make such a statement about geocities 5 years ago?
A few years ago a similar statement could have been made about Myspace or friendster a few years before that. Would you be willing to make such a statement about either company today?
Would you have been willing to make such a statement about geocities 5 years ago?
No and no. Neither MySpace nor Friendster ever had anything near a half billion users. Facebook has gotten to the point where the government would step in if they wanted to destroy all of the photos.
Mostly, I think Facebook has achieved the status of a utility. It is entrenched, with a solid business model. It's drastically different than Myspace and Friendster in that way. They were just fads.
Also, GeoCities was at least partially saved. As we develop more computing infrastructure of all kinds, that kind of thing becomes more an more likely.
Mostly, I think Facebook has achieved the status of a utility. It is entrenched, with a solid business model. It's drastically different than Myspace and Friendster in that way. They were just fads.
Also, GeoCities was at least partially saved. As we develop more computing infrastructure of all kinds, that kind of thing becomes more an more likely.
> Spend $15 for a CD or spend the same for three months access to an enormous catalog of music?
I'm picky about my music, so I don't buy new CDs that often, but when I do, it's usually for an artist I really like. When I have the opportunity, it's at a show for that artist, which hopefully means that they're getting a larger chunk of that $15 than it would if I buy it elsewhere.
Music and books are, of the media you listed, the ones where you could conceivably have a dinner party with all of the creative folks involved.
I'm picky about my music, so I don't buy new CDs that often, but when I do, it's usually for an artist I really like. When I have the opportunity, it's at a show for that artist, which hopefully means that they're getting a larger chunk of that $15 than it would if I buy it elsewhere.
Music and books are, of the media you listed, the ones where you could conceivably have a dinner party with all of the creative folks involved.
This is an interesting standpoint, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Ebooks have made vast strides recently, but there's just something about leafing through a book that they just can't seem to match. Perhaps it's the nostalgia talking, but reading a novel on a Kindle just seems a whole lot more sterile than an actual paperback.
Even for reference materials, ebooks still seem like the bastard child of a reference textbook and a proper hyperlinked manual.
Even for reference materials, ebooks still seem like the bastard child of a reference textbook and a proper hyperlinked manual.
I used to think this until I got a Kindle - I was almost determined that it wouldn't be as good as paper - but I now find it infuriating when I can't get something as an eBook.
For novels the difference (for me at least) is that the Kindle makes it easier to focus on actually reading.
I was surprised by this but turning a page is a small nudge of the thumb and your focus remains on the text, the device is light enough that holding it in the same position for an extended period or getting comfortable in bed or in a chair is far easier than for a book (even a paperback - and the difference between the Kindle and a hardback or trade paperback isn't even funny). Small barriers that you weren't even really aware of that are either taken away or noticeably reduced.
Of course there's all the additional stuff - buying books instantly nearly anywhere, carrying a whole library in your pocket and so on - but they turn out to be bells and whistles. The real difference is that it's just a better device for consuming text.
For reference books (at least large ones) the Kindle isn't there yet (layout, searching, colour and a few other key things) but without having hands on experience I can see the iPad could well remove most of those issues at which point searching and electronic notes, combined with reduced bulk (the iPad is heavy but not next to a 500 page programming book) likely give it an edge over paper.
For novels the difference (for me at least) is that the Kindle makes it easier to focus on actually reading.
I was surprised by this but turning a page is a small nudge of the thumb and your focus remains on the text, the device is light enough that holding it in the same position for an extended period or getting comfortable in bed or in a chair is far easier than for a book (even a paperback - and the difference between the Kindle and a hardback or trade paperback isn't even funny). Small barriers that you weren't even really aware of that are either taken away or noticeably reduced.
Of course there's all the additional stuff - buying books instantly nearly anywhere, carrying a whole library in your pocket and so on - but they turn out to be bells and whistles. The real difference is that it's just a better device for consuming text.
For reference books (at least large ones) the Kindle isn't there yet (layout, searching, colour and a few other key things) but without having hands on experience I can see the iPad could well remove most of those issues at which point searching and electronic notes, combined with reduced bulk (the iPad is heavy but not next to a 500 page programming book) likely give it an edge over paper.
I'm afraid it's the nostalgia talking, and we are dinosaurs. I do find interesting that very little people feel attached to tape/VHS/CDROM/DVDs though, while there are plenty who will swear that books in dead tree form are better than digital media.
Then again, I don't know how to write a love note on the front page of ebooks I'm giving as gift, and they are still not bathtub-compliant :)
Then again, I don't know how to write a love note on the front page of ebooks I'm giving as gift, and they are still not bathtub-compliant :)
Not yet it isn't. Most of the books I own are bigger than the pocket-paperback size the Kindle and competitors use. When there's a magazine-size screen with slightly faster switching, then I'll jump on it.
I also find navigating a book-length document on a laptop or something quite tedious. When I'm reading a complex book (where I often want to refer to the index, endnotes, or photographs) I will often have several fingers folded in at the relevant pages and can jump around quite quickly.
I also find navigating a book-length document on a laptop or something quite tedious. When I'm reading a complex book (where I often want to refer to the index, endnotes, or photographs) I will often have several fingers folded in at the relevant pages and can jump around quite quickly.
I think the difference there is that all of those are just storage devices - you can't just look at a DVD and see the movie, you already need a playback device in order to watch it. Given that, playing it back on the same device without having any external storage media is basically just cutting out the middleman.
Introducing a playback device (such as going from book -> Kindle + ebook) is quite different, I think.
Introducing a playback device (such as going from book -> Kindle + ebook) is quite different, I think.
Torrent in epub format. Open it up (it's just a zip). Edit HTML to your satisfaction, and re-zip.
The argument could similarly be made for watching feature films on a TV set with surround sound versus a theater. Ebooks aren't as beautiful (yet) as their hardback cousins, but they are instant, portable, and greener to boot!
Also, you don't have to worry about your pages becoming dog-eared. Or getting finger-grease or smudges on them. Or spines being worn or bent. If you grew up a book nerd, just thinking about these things happening to a physical book can make you squirm. With an eBook, the most you need is a cloth to wipe your reader display!
Also, there's definitely something to be said not only for carrying your book around on a light device, but carrying up to thousands of them around on a single light device. (Though, on the other hand, how often are you going to need to go back and read most of your non-reference books after you've finished them?).
Also, there's definitely something to be said not only for carrying your book around on a light device, but carrying up to thousands of them around on a single light device. (Though, on the other hand, how often are you going to need to go back and read most of your non-reference books after you've finished them?).
Oddly enough, my non-reference books have become reference books because of their ease of access. For example, I was once trying to explain how a simple shift in perspective can lead to radical changes in behavior. Pulled out Ender's Game and a blurb of "the gate is down" as a 'concrete' example.
As a book nerd, you often relate to books in response to certain situations. Instead of summarizing, we can now quickly access the eloquent prose of a gifted author that had time to express herself :)
As a book nerd, you often relate to books in response to certain situations. Instead of summarizing, we can now quickly access the eloquent prose of a gifted author that had time to express herself :)
Interestingly, I find old books charming, especially ones with signs of wear and age. Kind of like a sturdy old table with nicks and bruises or a skillet with scrapes and scratches.
I think eBooks are fine for "on-the-go," but hard copies certainly have a place on my bookshelf. In time, hard copies will become a niche product, one you use while sitting in your easy chair on a cold winter night. Everyone thought the radio will die with the advent of TV, but it just found a niche (nobody listens to the radio in their house, but they do in their car).
As a side note, the OP said that he prefers reference books as hard copy books. When I think of reference books though, I think searchable content, which means I want my references to be in eBook format.
I think eBooks are fine for "on-the-go," but hard copies certainly have a place on my bookshelf. In time, hard copies will become a niche product, one you use while sitting in your easy chair on a cold winter night. Everyone thought the radio will die with the advent of TV, but it just found a niche (nobody listens to the radio in their house, but they do in their car).
As a side note, the OP said that he prefers reference books as hard copy books. When I think of reference books though, I think searchable content, which means I want my references to be in eBook format.
The radio/TV comparison is a little off. Radio is a fundamentally different experience than TV: it doesn't require sight. So that allows it to occupy it's rather substantial niche.
Paper books still have some interface advantages over ebooks (as several people have described in this thread) but they'll go away as people build proper, well designed ebook readers.
When that happens, all books will have going for them is nostalgia and a pleasant physical experience that can't be replicated digitally. I think a much more apt comparison is records, which don't provide a fundamentally different sonic experience, but do have nostalgia and physicality.
So I think a handful of book lovers will still have collections, and visit the bookstore down the street, but like record players, and unlike radios, I think the vast majority of the population won't have any.
Paper books still have some interface advantages over ebooks (as several people have described in this thread) but they'll go away as people build proper, well designed ebook readers.
When that happens, all books will have going for them is nostalgia and a pleasant physical experience that can't be replicated digitally. I think a much more apt comparison is records, which don't provide a fundamentally different sonic experience, but do have nostalgia and physicality.
So I think a handful of book lovers will still have collections, and visit the bookstore down the street, but like record players, and unlike radios, I think the vast majority of the population won't have any.
there's definitely something to be said not only for carrying your book around on a light device, but carrying up to thousands of them around on a single light device.
Definitly. There's something exhilerating about bringing all your books with you.
There are practical advantages aswell. I'm going on a 3 week holiday to australia soon. Previously I'd have to deciede what books I want to bring with me (since I couldn't take them all). Now I don't have to think about it. I just take my kindle and I know I have all my books.
Definitly. There's something exhilerating about bringing all your books with you.
There are practical advantages aswell. I'm going on a 3 week holiday to australia soon. Previously I'd have to deciede what books I want to bring with me (since I couldn't take them all). Now I don't have to think about it. I just take my kindle and I know I have all my books.
I recently got a Kindle and I'm convinced. It's the future. I'm reading much much books. Reading on a Kindle is superiour to reading a dead tree.
Does anyone know of a Linux compatible archive system for scanned paper?
It doesn't really have to OCR, but should allow for tagging and searching.
I would really like to get rid of my stacks of old (administrative) paper, and the ones that I still receive through snailmail.
DVDs/CDs/books don't bother me as much, as they look nice, but those binders with crappy old paper I can't wait to throw it out.
It doesn't really have to OCR, but should allow for tagging and searching.
I would really like to get rid of my stacks of old (administrative) paper, and the ones that I still receive through snailmail.
DVDs/CDs/books don't bother me as much, as they look nice, but those binders with crappy old paper I can't wait to throw it out.
I tried to find something and failed. Nowadays, I just upload to zoho apps and tag the documents there.
That's a good option, I might consider that. The advantage is that it makes the documents accessible from everywhere.
On the other hand, as it is a cloud service, you have to trust them to keep the data. Do they make it possible to access/backup your documents through some API?
Hm I guess in that case I could simply use Google documents as well. Seems that it even (experimentally) supports OCR: http://code.google.com/apis/documents/docs/3.0/developers_gu...
On the other hand, as it is a cloud service, you have to trust them to keep the data. Do they make it possible to access/backup your documents through some API?
Hm I guess in that case I could simply use Google documents as well. Seems that it even (experimentally) supports OCR: http://code.google.com/apis/documents/docs/3.0/developers_gu...
Everything else was/is indeed destined to move to its digital form sooner or later no matter how much the physical good producer regrets it; but you cannot take it away from physical books. Ebooks are handy. They are portable, safe from wear and tear, cheap and what not. But what about those moments when you really need to take your eyes away off the screen but still want to be productive or have some quality time reading.
This might be just a personal POV, but over the time looking at screen becomes so usual that you need an extra physical thing to get that kick. In my case it's physical books.
I can imagine reading a linear text is quite unobtrusive on a Kindle. I got one for my mother and she loves it. The display on it is really crisp, it's light, and she has access to a vast library of books.
I still cannot fathom owning one.
Digital media has a lot of social issues to work out. A book doesn't come with a TOS or EULA. The media the story comes on doesn't require a special licensed reader from the book store. It doesn't come crippled with DRM and anti-circumvention laws.
(And as far as books are concerned, e-readers are crap for anything but linear text as far as I'm concerned.)
That being said, the majority of my media is digital these days. I even buy pure digital copies of my console games. It's very convenient, but as an investment it's practically worthless. The formats for this stuff are not universal and require special hardware to use them. I've bought Super Mario Bros. 3 at least 4 or 5 times in my life. I still have my copy of the Lord of the Rings that I've read 4 or 5 times in my life and it required no special hardware or work arounds. I wouldn't have to have bought that game so many times if emulators and backups were fully legal.
The technology is awesome. We're just not ready as a society yet to commit to it.
I still cannot fathom owning one.
Digital media has a lot of social issues to work out. A book doesn't come with a TOS or EULA. The media the story comes on doesn't require a special licensed reader from the book store. It doesn't come crippled with DRM and anti-circumvention laws.
(And as far as books are concerned, e-readers are crap for anything but linear text as far as I'm concerned.)
That being said, the majority of my media is digital these days. I even buy pure digital copies of my console games. It's very convenient, but as an investment it's practically worthless. The formats for this stuff are not universal and require special hardware to use them. I've bought Super Mario Bros. 3 at least 4 or 5 times in my life. I still have my copy of the Lord of the Rings that I've read 4 or 5 times in my life and it required no special hardware or work arounds. I wouldn't have to have bought that game so many times if emulators and backups were fully legal.
The technology is awesome. We're just not ready as a society yet to commit to it.
Ive been loving people and libraries going digital. I snagged several physical books that were out of print in the last year at prices I never imagined a couple of years back. examples - etudes for programmers, introduction to functional programming etc for < 20$'s. On Lisp for < 30 bucks still eludes me though.
Digital stuff is still fairly new - most people, at least until recently, preferred real world stuff.
So it makes sense that digital is cheaper. But relying on its cheapness doesn't make sense since there is no guarantee that digital will stay cheaper once more people switch.
So it makes sense that digital is cheaper. But relying on its cheapness doesn't make sense since there is no guarantee that digital will stay cheaper once more people switch.
Personally I like to take my eyes away from a screen every now and then. Books FTW.
Have you tried the newest Kindle? I've found that I actually read more with it since it's so easy to carry around.
I spend so much time in front of screens that I refuse to buy another one.
Can I carry it into the bath and read it there? I’m not sure why ebook reader manufacturers aren’t tapping this market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
Questions for Jeff Bezos
Q: What do you say to Kindle users who like to read in the bathtub? A: I’ll tell you what I do. I take a one-gallon Ziploc bag, and I put my Kindle in my one-gallon Ziploc bag, and it works beautifully. It’s much better than a physical book, because obviously if you put your physical book in a Ziploc bag you can’t turn the pages. But with Kindle, you can just push the buttons.
Q: What if you dropped your Kindle in the bathtub? A: If it’s sealed in a one-gallon Ziploc bag? Why don’t you try that experiment and let me know.
Questions for Jeff Bezos
Q: What do you say to Kindle users who like to read in the bathtub? A: I’ll tell you what I do. I take a one-gallon Ziploc bag, and I put my Kindle in my one-gallon Ziploc bag, and it works beautifully. It’s much better than a physical book, because obviously if you put your physical book in a Ziploc bag you can’t turn the pages. But with Kindle, you can just push the buttons.
Q: What if you dropped your Kindle in the bathtub? A: If it’s sealed in a one-gallon Ziploc bag? Why don’t you try that experiment and let me know.
I thought people were just putting them inside large sandwich bags?
!! DISCLAIMER - I've not been brave enough to try this with my iPad2 yet
!! DISCLAIMER - I've not been brave enough to try this with my iPad2 yet
Guess that’d work but yep, would be a little frightening. Seems like an obvious thing for the Kindle to get though. Give it wifi/3G for data transfer and Touchstone (or equivalent) for power transfer, and you don’t need a single port. Then just seal the case up.
I can personally attest that you can carry and read in the bath with your e-reader. Granted, the humidity must not be great for it.
If someone comes up with a water proof cover for popular e-reader models, surely there would be a market for it.
If someone comes up with a water proof cover for popular e-reader models, surely there would be a market for it.
I like the idea. I just never get to do it. :)
What service fills the void that refusing to buy Blu-Rays opens? Saying "DVD quality is good enough" and using a streaming service is in the same line as "Paper books are good enough".
Is there a name for the annoying pop-ups and stay-ups that go on the top and bottom of web pages these days? If not, may I nominate "dickbar"?
In a world where you not only need serials and registration to play multi-player games, but many single player games, it's becoming difficult to even argue against digital download game services, like Steam (on which I currently have 400+ games). Hell, you don't even have to concern yourself with shelf space, theft, loss, or damage anymore.
The problem is that you also have to accept several negatives. Like DRM or the inability to resell a purchased book, album, movie, or game.
The problem is that you have to make several leaps of faith, too. Faith that the source of your content will still be around for the length of time that you'd own the physical version (several generations, in the case of books). Faith that their DRM won't bite you in the ass. Faith that something won't happen to your account which restricts your access to your content and that if it does, their customer services is accessible and responsive. Faith that they won't suddenly yank content you've already paid. Faith that they won't do any dirty aggregation or data mining as you use content that you own.
I'm all for digital, but I think we need some serious commitment from publishers and distributors and content warehouses before we continue making huge investments into what is essentially a collection of content licenses. An industry-enforced sort of "bill of digital content consumer rights" wouldn't be unreasonable.